Think very carefully before you open the door to questioning your motives and behavior.
It is abundantly clear that you are not here to have your theory tested. Your behavior is far more consistent with acting out a delusion of grandeur. And this is not merely the "biased" assessment of skeptics; you were given exactly the same assessment elsewhere, where you can make no assumptions about the ideological makeup or predilection of your critics. And you selected individuals from academia whom you regarded as both unbiased and knowledgeable. They told you the same thing we're telling you -- your argument is severely broken. In the larger sense, you ignore nearly all criticism of your proof, citing flimsy excuses or making lame bids to referee the debate in your favor.
Further, you were given a concise statement of many of the things wrong with your argument, errors that are individually fatal, any one of which dooms your argument. You expressed interest in it only insofar as you could use it in a self-serving capacity. You showed no interest whatsoever in its content, and continue to pretend it doesn't exist. How can these facts possibly be consistent with your stated intent to have others tell you wherein you might be mistaken?
As you can tell, I still think I'm right.
But according to the facts, you are not right. Your proof is laughably,
obviously wrong.
- This "self," or "sense of self" -- whatever you want to call it -- is something we all experience.
Yes, it is an
experience. Just like love or pain or indigestion. It doesn't exist in any form separate from the entity that's experiencing it. You rely on several layers of equivocation to make it a sort of separate entity, assert it to pre-exist, and suggest that all of this is part of E and must be explained by materialism.
You don't believe that anything, including the self, is immaterial.
When evaluating P(E|H), which is what this phase of your proof is doing, belief is irrelevant. You must evaluate P(E|H) as if H were true. H is the scientific theory of materialism, in which all that is observable is caused by the behavior of the material universe.
I'm trying to show you why I believe that OOFLam is wrong.
No. You said you could prove mathematically that you had an immortal soul. Frankly it's clear you don't have the mathematics chops to do it. Your floundering around regarding division by infinity was most amusing. You really have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to mathematics of this ilk, and this has been most apparent to all your critics.
And once again "OOFLam" is something you made up. It's not something your critics espouse or are somehow obligated to defend. If your critics can be said to have an affirmative belief, it is in scientific materialism. However, you have the burden of proof.
Further, you are arguing a false dilemma. As do nearly all fringe theorists, you have turned the argument around so that the thing you need to prove is somehow a default that "logically" holds if you can cast enough aspersion on some competing theory. Showing us why you don't believe something else is a very, very far cry from proving the thing that you do believe, as you said you would do.
All these and more errors were brought to your attention in a concise, well-organized list, which you have ignored.
That belief does imply that the self is immaterial.
We stipulated that it
requires something immaterial. Which is to say, if you cannot present us evidence for the existence of the immaterial, your proof fails immediately. It's been five years and all we've gotten from you is the run-around punctuated by insults. You have no evidence for the immaterial. You admitted variously at times that you have no such evidence and are unlikely to get any. And you blamed your critics for that, somehow. But the fact we're left with is that your proof fails immediately for your inability to substantiate its major premise.
I'm trying to show that what you subscribe to is wrong... So far, I'm not doing too well, but it is appropriate behavior under the circumstances.
Your behavior is in no way appropriate.
You're not doing to well because you have no evidence and your argument is severely flawed in many ways, all of which you have been repeatedly informed about. You continue to pretend otherwise, and this is both dishonest and unfair to your critics.
